OMG, OASIS The Open Group and several others came together to reconcile
many standards artifacts concerned with SOA including SOA ontology work.
This work took place after the standardization of the OASIS Reference
Model for SOA and some other SOA standards work. We strove to ensure
there was no conflicting definitions or repetition of work and also sought
to build a document to explain this all to the general public. (01)
The result is the document entitled "Navigating the SOA Open Standards
Landscape Around Architecture" (try saying that 5 times fast). This work
reconciles the Open Groups SOA Ontology work with other works. (02)
There is no way a standard SOA ontology for classification of all aspects
of services should be described as a problem as written in the W3C. I
think he is seeking to reconcile multiple classifications of services
rather than define a single ontology for SOA. The OASIS reference model
itself hints at an ontology but in reality, there are only a limited
number of facts that can be declared about services. These are the
typical concepts represented in the UDDI and WSDL standards with minor
variations of course. For everything else, especially classifications of
meanings of services, a more flexible approach is required. (03)
Where some really relevant work has been done is in JCR 170 and JSR 283.
We have embraced both of these works in the Adobe Digital Enterprise
Platform (ADEP). This is the implementation of several of the concepts of
an advanced content management system that has a very flexible
classification schemata which can allow declarations of many types.
Making a de facto definition will probably always fail as it is shared by
possibly only a subset of all users of services. I think this is what the
gist of the Frege-Church work hinted at (ref:
What Adobe has found in practice to be a much better system is to make the
declarations transparent for classifying services. For example, user X
declares that service Y is of type Label Z can be expressed in both KIF,
JCR 170/JSR 283 and RDF or OWL.
Conclusion: SOA is no more problematic than anything else WRT building
ontologies or taxonomies. (06)
On 9/29/11 11:38 AM, "Bart Gajderowicz" <bgajdero@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: (08)
>I thought this post from Frank Carvalho was interesting as an
>application of ontologies to keep dynamic data and metadata organized.
>It's only RDF, but I find it interesting that a standard SOA ontology
>is described as a problem. Instead each "type of metainformation has
>its own ontology".
>Are standard/upper ontologies only practical for more expressive
>Is this a unique domain-ontology that simply wouldn't benefit from a
>Bart Gajderowicz, MSc.
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (010)